Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 4)

Though the patron-client system functioned at multiple levels, in which the client of one patron could also have clients of his own, it would be obvious that the most noble of families could have large numbers of clients supporting them in their endeavors.  Along the same lines, entire kingdoms or nations, once conquered and made subservient, could become clients to the Roman commander that had conquered them.  Such was the way of the world. 

Of course, if clients had clients, and if this reached all the way down to the basest level of society, it would also hold true for the other side of the ladder.  Even a noble family would be the clients of a more honorable family, with this being the case all the way up to, in the days of Jesus and subsequently of the Apostle Paul, the Caesar himself.  Ultimately, all were looked upon as clients of Caesar, who was faithful and loyal to his subjects.  Those subjects, in turn, were to be faithful and loyal to Caesar.  This ideal was embodied in the common phrase “ek pistis eis pistin,” which is often translated as “from faith to faith”.  The Apostle Paul borrowed this common and well-known phraseology and subversively put it to use in his letter to the Romans (1:17).

It is this system of patronage that truly formed the foundation of the Roman state.  Not only did it serve to create stability, but the unwavering loyalty of clients could aid certain families in retaining power for extended periods of time.  At the same time, it created something of a welfare network, which was especially useful within an empire that lacked the means (or, at least, did not direct those means) to support those most in need and incapable of providing for themselves. 

The client system that surrounded a patron would look out for its members, ensuring that no harm would come to its own.  If one member of the client group would be struck down by poverty, the other clients, and most likely the patron as well, would see to it that the one in need could get a loan.  In the worst case, they would see to it that their fellow client would receive a decent funeral.  If the patron was unable to provide assistance personally, he would orchestrate the assistance (gaining honor), perhaps asking other clients to come to the aid of another that had fallen on hard time. 

In continuing to explore the patron-client dynamic of Paul’s day, one can look to Seneca---a Roman philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and humorist that was a contemporary of the Apostle Paul.  Seneca wrote: “Let us, therefore, show how acceptable a gift is by loudly expressing our gratitude for it; and let us do so, not only in the hearing of the giver, but everywhere.  He who receives a benefit with gratitude, repays the first installment of it.”  This statement would reflect the general attitude of a client towards his patron, who would be looked upon as the source of gifts.  For what it’s worth, Seneca himself was a tutor of the Emperor Nero, later becoming an advisor.  Most assuredly, he would have considered Nero to be his patron, so though these words would be generally reflective of the patron-client relationship, they would most likely be penned with the Caesar in mind.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 3)

If one does not operate from within an awareness of the patron-client system of the ancient world, one will undoubtedly miss what would have been obvious to the witnesses of these things and to those to whom these stories came, whether in oral or written form.  That is not to say that it will not be possible to understand the overarching Gospel message (Jesus is Lord), but rather, that readings and the ability to apply that which is gleaned and learned from those readings will be richer by orders of great magnitude if one approaches the Scriptural text within appropriate historical and contextual boundaries. 

Moving forward then, it is incumbent upon an observer to realize that the world into which the Gospel narratives were introduced would have been more than well-versed in the dynamics of the patron-client relationship, as would those that came to identify themselves as Christians.  This cultural dynamic would certainly be put to good use, especially since, in that time, it was very much the case that all positive relationships with any god were rooted in the perception of the patron-client relationship. 

So, even though it may seem quite extraneous to a perusal of a letter of Paul, it is quite important to have a strong grasp of this underlying cultural principle of the patron-client system so that it is possible to correctly hear what Paul is communicating to Timothy.  As indicated by the title of this study, there is a strong counter-cultural bent in the first letter to Timothy, as is largely the case for Paul; and the patron-client system seems to be a useful jumping off point.  To that end, said system will continue to be explored, with that exploration providing a few more details that can serve as cultural keys in an exegesis of the letter. 

A client was a loyal supporter to a high standing Roman family, and it is the head of that higher-standing family that would ultimately be known as “patronus,” or “patron.”  The clients of the patron functioned as an extended family to the patron---something like a clan.  They would be expected to loyally support him (offer fides or pistis) in any venture upon which he chose to embark, be that military, political, or commercial.  Meanwhile, the patron would aid his clients through representing their political interests through the office that he held, or by defending them in the courts as their advocate if such became necessary. 

This bond between patron and client was one of the bedrock foundations of Roman society.  This reciprocal loyalty (again, fides or pistis) was a highly prized virtue, and it served to hold together families while serving as the unifying nexus of the social order.  The loyalty of the client would be expected to extend beyond the patron and to the patron’s family as well.  If a patron were to die, a client would be expected to offer the patron’s heir the same loyalty as had been offered to the original patron.  Likewise for the client.  Should the client die, his heir would be expected to stand in for the head of that family, continuing the clientele loyalty to their benefactor. 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 2)

In the fifth chapter of Mark, Jesus heals a demoniac by casting a “Legion” of demons out of him and into a herd of pigs.  At the conclusion of this story, it is reported that “As He was getting into the boat the man who had been demon-possessed asked if he could go with Him.  But Jesus did not permit him to do so.  Instead, He said to him, ‘Go to your home and to your people and tell them what the Lord has done for you, that He had mercy on you.’” (Mark 5:18-19) 

At first glance, it appears that Jesus is in fact telling this man to engage in activity that would be standard for a client, that of telling others about the benefaction of a patron.  However, on second glance, Jesus, as was customary, is pointing away from Himself and to the Creator God of Israel as the source of healing.  At the same time, the Gospel author wants the reader to see the way in which Jesus act of mercy is received against the known background of the patron-client dynamic, as he goes on to write “So he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis what Jesus had done for him, and all were amazed” (5:20).  This would have been standard practice for a client.  Though it has not been requested nor demanded of him, he has made Jesus his patron.  Though the earthly Jesus clearly did not desire this, especially when considering His constant insistence on keeping His activities or identity secret, in a cosmic sense this is entirely appropriate.

The story of “Blind Bartimaeus,” as recorded in the tenth chapter of Mark, also fits well into the patron-client dynamic.  Commencing with verse forty-six: “They came to Jericho.  As Jesus and His disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the road.  When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to shout, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’” (10:46-47)  By this, Bartimaeus is attempting to gain Jesus’ attention and ultimately His patronage, offering Jesus praise, requesting mercy, and so attempting to take the position of client. 

Reading further then, it is said that “Many scolded him to get him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’  Jesus stopped and said, ‘Call him.’  So they called the blind man and said to him, ‘Have courage!  Get up!  He is calling you.’  He threw off his cloak, jumped up, and came to Jesus.  Then Jesus said to him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’  The blind man replied, “Rabbi, let me see again.’  Jesus said to him, ‘Go, your faith has healed you.’  Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the road” (10:48-52). 

In this story, Bartimaeus is undeterred by the scolding.  He desires Jesus’ patronage.  He is willing to become Jesus’ client.  He throws off his cloak (likely his only cloak), thus signifying a complete reliance on this patron (further debasing himself as a nod to the honor of the potential patron).  He also uses the honorific title of “Rabbi.”  Jesus’ response is not what one would expect from a patron, in that He does not take credit for the healing, but rather, Jesus tells the man that he has been healed by his own faith (fides, pistis - loyalty).  The now healed man, desirous of showing forth his loyalty and of having a role in increasing Jesus’ public honor, takes up the position of a client, by following Jesus on the road. 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 1)

Now to the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever!  Amen. – 1 Timothy 1:17  (NET)

Before one can commence with an exegesis of the text of Paul’s first letter to Timothy (this study will take the position that the letter comes from the mind and hand of the Apostle Paul, though for the purposes of this study, it really makes no difference whether the letter is Pauline or deutero-Pauline), there is an obligation to take steps to construct the social framework in which the letter will be composed, in which it will be read by its recipient, and in which it may have been shared with an assembly of Christians.  Specifically, one must be aware of the patron-client relationship of the Roman world. 

The patron-client relationship was one which tied persons of significantly different social status together in a reciprocal exchange of goods and services.  The relationship is asymmetrical, in that the two sides are not social equals and will never make any pretense whatsoever of equality.  The patron-client contract, especially in a world heavily divided between free and slave or citizen and subject, as was the Roman world, provides the client with things that would not normally be available to them, whether that be material things or even something nebulous and subjectively defined, such as justice.  Whatever it is that is provided to the client by the patron, it is understood that the client badly needs these things, and that the client cannot obtain such things on his own.  

In return for the benefaction of the patron, the client gives the patron honor and loyalty.  In a world defined by the system of the limited good of honor, the client does not confer his own honor upon the patron.  Rather, the patron is accorded greater honor in the court of public reputation by amassing a network of clients that, ipso facto, demonstrates the largesse of the patron and serves to signify how truly honorable and worthy of honor the patron is. 

The honor of the patron is then noised abroad by the client (the client speaks in honorific language about his patron), so that all may hear of the deeds of the patron on behalf of the client, which is part and parcel of his demonstration of loyalty.  In Latin, this loyalty is known as “fides,” whereas in Greek it is known as “pistis.”  Translated to English, such is read as “faith.”  The denizens of the world into which Jesus and the announcement of His Gospel came would have largely heard “faith” as a response of loyalty within the parameters of the patron-client system.    

Interestingly, the existence and prevalence of the patron-client relationship seem to be implied in many accounts within the Gospels of Jesus’ interaction with those that came to Him seeking some good thing that they could not obtain for themselves.  Those that came to Jesus in search of the good that He could provide would be fully aware of the patron-client relationship, and would often expect the demand for or exhibit the desire to treat Jesus as their patron, offering their services or their selves to Him as their client.  Jesus, however, during His earthly ministry, rejects clientage, and resists becoming a patron in the accepted sense.  To demonstrate this, a couple of brief examples from the Gospels will suffice. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 30)

However, if the Temple fell, as Jesus apparently predicted it would, and if the message about Jesus and about His words included the insistence that Jesus was, in fact, the new Temple, that the Temple continued in those that believed in Him as Messiah (as the place in which the Creator God, by His Spirit, truly dwelled), that Israel’s God had raised Him from the dead, and that He was the Son of Man that had now gone before the Ancient of Days and received the power of the long-awaited kingdom of God, then a shift in loyalty and allegiance (faith) would be a very natural thing to occur. 

If the Temple fell, and did so in line with Jesus’ predictions (perhaps one can think about the report of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place and the author’s comment about the reader understanding), and if it was all tied-up with Jesus’ ministry, His crucifixion, His Resurrection, His ascension (understood to be the joining of the realm of the Creator God and the realm of man---the coming together of heaven and earth), the witness of the church, and the coming of the Son of Man to receive kingdom authority, then it would be more than clear that the Creator God had acted just as decisively within history as He had when the Temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians. 

If the Temple had come to its end, and if the person that had predicted such a thing, who had been said to have been raised from the dead by the Creator God, was also reported to have insisted that He received His kingdom at the same time, then it would make all the sense in the world for the covenant people of the covenant God travel all the way down that path, worshiping Him and honoring Him as so deserved.  Of course, historically, the actions of Gentile Christians did much to dissuade the Jews from traveling that path.    

It would be one thing to go and preach a risen Lord.  That would be a matter of meta-physical speculation and, when you get right down to it, faith.  It would be quite another to go and preach a risen Lord, with a desire to accurately share the message that He preached, speaking about the Creator God’s kingdom coming through Him, with that tied to the fall of the Temple while the Temple of Jerusalem still stood.  With a clear understanding that Jesus did, in fact, predict the fall of the Temple, then it may very well have been the most important issue at hand in the witness of the early church.  The destruction of the Temple, with it occurring within the time frame that Jesus very clearly gave in one of His most straightforward answers, and as it appears that this is actually something that He must have said (otherwise it would not be so stringently reported and insisted upon by the Gospel authors), would be the thing that, rightly and understandably, gave weight to all other claims about Jesus. 

Frankly, if He was truly going to be considered as a legitimate prophet, then the Temple had to come crashing down.  It would be one thing to predict such a thing in a time of relative peace and stability under the Romans, and another thing altogether to insist upon such an occurrence when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies and the Jews are in the process of open rebellion against Rome.  Here, one is forced to think about Jesus’ statement that many would come in His name (Messiah, Son of Man, etc…), claiming to be the messiah (Matthew 24:5) in the midst of wars and rumors of wars, and to consider his talk about people saying “Look, here is the Christ!” or “There He is!”, while adding that those that say such things during times of duress are not be believed (as it is only natural to make predictions about the possible destruction of the Temple when the Jews are in open revolt against Rome).  So when Jesus says “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (24:24), and then adds, “Remember, I have told you ahead of time” (24:25), better sense of this can be made. 

Jesus spoke about the fall of the Temple “ahead of time.”  Yes, Jesus made His prediction in association with the time of relative peace and stability.  This was risky stuff for Jesus.  There is great faith on display.  If He was to be held up as anything but a failed messianic pretender, then it was ultimately necessary for the Temple to be destroyed.  The Resurrection only mattered if Jesus received His kingdom as the Son of Man, and He had very clearly said that He would come to His reign (or His reign would be confirmed) when the Temple fell.       

Noah & Abraham (part 2 of 2)

Continuing here in chapter twelve of Genesis, the covenant making God continues speaking to Abram and says, “I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:3). With these words, a further connection is forged between Abraham and Noah, as Abraham stands in the line of covenant speaking and covenant language that begins with Noah, because according to the Scriptural narrative, there is only a people to be blessed through the nation into which the Creator God has promised to make Abram, because God told Noah (and Noah was faithful to), “be fruitful and multiply; increase abundantly on the earth and multiply on it” (9:7).

Continuing on then, we can look to chapter fifteen, in which Abraham, still childless though having a promise from God, says “O sovereign Lord, what will you give me since I continue to be childless, and my heir is Eliezer of Damascus?...  Since you have not given me a descendant, then look, one born in my house will be my heir!” (15:2-3)  By this report, it becomes quite clear that Abraham was taking his God very seriously.  He was not wavering at the promise.  In fact, it could be said that these are questions rooted in faith.  Presumably, because of that ongoing response of faith, the Creator God does not rebuke Abraham but rather says to him, “This man will not be your heir, but instead a son who comes from your own body will be your heir…  Gaze into the sky and count the stars---if you are able to count them!...  So will your descendants be” (15:4-5).  Here is where we find the source of Paul’s quote in Romans (which would call to mind the Abraham narrative), where we then read “Abraham believed the Lord, and the Lord considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty” (15:6).  Here, along with seeing that righteousness (in right covenant standing) is equated with a genuine loyalty to God, we learn that just like had been experienced by Noah, Abraham was given a promise of things not yet seen, reverently regarded the promise of his God, and through faith became an heir of righteousness.

Staying in Romans and going forward, which continues to give us insight into the ways in which the Abraham story was understood in the days of Paul (and Jesus), we find that “Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result that he became the father of many nations according to the pronouncement, ‘so will your descendants be’.” (4:18)  Like Abraham, did not Noah believe God against all reasonable probability?  Remember, the Noah story, as part of the Israel story, is understood against the backdrop of the Abraham story (for without the Abraham story, there is no Israel story, and no record or purpose for the Noah story). 

For the Noah story, it appears to be the case that what God was talking about seemed highly unlikely, based on mankind’s experience up to that point.  It was no different for Abraham.  The people of that time understood that really old people didn’t have children.  Yet Abraham, and Noah likewise, “did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God” (4:20).  The Creator God received glory through Noah’s faith-motivated construction of the ark, in confident expectation that his God would deliver on His promise.  Both Noah and Abraham were “fully convinced that what God had promised He was also able to do” (4:21).  This “was credited to Abraham as righteousness” (4:22), which is what the Hebrews’ author would come to say of Noah as well. 

So what is it to which all of this is leading?  Just like Noah, and just like Abraham, who became the heir of righteousness (Noah) and the father of many nations (Abraham) when they believed, so believers in the Christ likewise become heirs of the Creator God’s promise of a resurrection just like Jesus when they believe in His new covenant of the Gospel message that Jesus is Lord.  Believers become recipients of what Paul refers to as the down payment ,and heirs of the complete inheritance of eternal life (the life of the age to come breaking into the creation) that is set forth in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  As Paul writes, in the same way that Abraham was credited with a complete trust in his God’s covenant faithfulness, it is those “to whom it will be credited, those who believe in the One Who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Romans 4:24).  Though Noah became an heir of righteousness that comes by faith, “God had provided something better for us” (Hebrews 11:40a), that being those that believe in, and live as if Jesus is Lord, as they walk and serve in response to Christ’s Resurrection power---as instruments for the out-raying of the glory of their God.        

My Criminal Gospel (part 2 of 3)

Throughout the remainder of this second letter to Timothy, Paul continues to point out the criminal nature of the message of the Gospel.  After mentioning the fact of his suffering and being bound in chains, Paul brushes it off and says that even though he might be bound, “the Word of God is not bound!” (2:9b).  Clearly this was the case, since so many of Paul’s letters (though he was certainly not claiming “Word of God” status from his letters) were written from prison.  Apart from some of the records of the Book of Acts, the letters are the only source that we have for Paul’s preaching, so Paul’s inability to move about freely had no bearing on the mobility of the Word of God, the Gospel, that was being preached.  Knowing that his physical limitations were of little consequence in the larger scheme of things, Paul says, “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect” (2:10a). 

This theme of suffering for the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) is carried on throughout the letter.  In the third chapter, Paul mentions “my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, Iconium, and at Lystra---which persecutions I endured” (3:11a).  He did not dwell on the nature of the persecutions, but on the nature of His Lord, saying “yet from them all the Lord rescued me” (3:11b).  With this said, Paul goes on to make a most interesting and fascinating statement, which unfortunately, is held in a faulty understanding by most all of us.  Paul writes, “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (3:12). 

Now, how is it that we don’t really understand this statement?  Basically, it’s because we have a poor conception of what it means to live “a godly life.”  If we are honest with ourselves, when we think about “a godly life,” most of us think that what is meant by that is not drinking too much, not doing drugs, not cheating on our spouses, not killing anybody, being nice to people and animals, going to church, not robbing banks, not cheating on our taxes, reading the Bible, memorizing Scripture, not beating our kids, working hard at our jobs, giving to charitable causes, and so on and so forth.  With some additions and subtractions, this is what we think about when we hear or read that term “godly life.”  Now, if we think about this, will living that way bring any real persecution?  No, of course not.  Living in that way will generally bring some measure of honor and respect.  These things do not invite persecution. 

So what does it mean to live a godly life?  The Greek word for “godly” here is “eusebos.”  What this word denotes, above all things, is a manner of life that is marked by a constant God-awareness.  Not only that, but it is in the genitive case, so it also speaks of source, or from where something is generated, if you will.  So “godly” is a manner of life of God-awareness that has us living an acting with a constant awareness of the fact of the kingdom of God and its King, and acting accordingly.  Paul has written about living “a godly life in Christ Jesus.”  So how should we understand this?  Expanding the thought, we could say “living with a solidarity and allegiance inducing belief that Jesus Christ is Lord.”  “In Christ Jesus” is an identifier of loyalty, denoting that a person has joined up with the covenant people, and is now participating in the plans and purposes of the Creator God.  Indeed, our God-awareness, that reverential attitude of awe towards God that is sometimes called the “fear of God,” is an attitude of faith that says that Jesus is Lord, and that all rulers and authorities and powers are subject to Him. 

That living of a godly life in Christ Jesus results in a proclamation that says that every knee will bow to Him and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  The living of a godly life in Christ Jesus, and the attendant and required proclamations (in word and deed) from those that hold to such beliefs, are bound to ruffle a few feathers and cause a fair amount of consternation to those that believe themselves to be the masters of their own lives or the ruling powers-that-be.  This is the godly life in Christ Jesus that brings persecution, not the perception of a godly life as roughly outlined above.  This is why Paul was continually suffering, enduring persecution, and finding himself bound as a criminal.  The message that he brought was a subversive message in his day, and because human nature is unchanged, it remains subversive in this day as well, which is why it is treated as a criminal message in many places throughout the world.

Immediately (part 1 of 4)

And immediately they left their nets and followed Him. – Mark 1:18  (ESV)

The Gospel of Mark presents a fast-paced story.  At sixteen chapters, it is the shortest of the four Gospels.  Mark is concerned with presenting the facts and the acts of the life of Jesus, and does not allow itself to get slowed down in the least.  In the first chapter we read, “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the Gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel’.” (1:14-15)  From the first, this was Jesus’ message.  Mark gets to it quickly.  Where Matthew and Luke don’t have Jesus speaking until the third chapter of their writing, Mark spends very little time building a foundation for Jesus’ ministry.  There is a sense of urgency to Mark.  We see that urgency in the verses we just quoted, as we read things like “The time is fulfilled,” “the kingdom of God is at hand,” and “repent and believe.”  Mark calls this the Gospel of God and Jesus says that it is to be believed.  This Gospel, of course, is that Jesus is Lord. 

As we contemplate that sense of urgency in Mark, we’ll notice a word that is used on a regular basis.  Though it is used in the other Gospels (five times in Matthew, once in Luke, and three times in John), the stunning frequency of its usage is peculiar to Mark.  That word, in the Greek, is “euthus,” and it is best translated as “immediately.”  Placed alongside and in the context of the message that Mark says Jesus came preaching ,which is that of the Gospel of the time of the kingdom of God being at hand, what this message implies for God’s covenant people Israel, and the need for repentance and belief (getting on the side of the mission of the Creator God via a loyalty to Jesus and the way of His mission), this word should take on an even greater significance than that which it already possesses. 

The first time that we see this word used is in the tenth verse of chapter one, in the context of Jesus’ baptism by John.  We read “And when He came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove” (1:10).  Following this, “The Spirit immediately drove Him out into the wilderness” (1:12). 

The third time we see it in Mark is in the text with which we began.  Jesus saw Simon and Andrew and said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men” (1:17).  As an aside, we’ll notice that Jesus puts the onus on Himself to make them become fishers of men, rather than telling them that they should become fishers of men.  He promises to be involved.  He is not going to be a distant monarch.  The response of these two men is that “immediately they left their nets and followed Him” (1:18).  A little further on, Jesus sees John and James, and “immediately He called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants and followed Him” (1:20).  There, the immediacy is not placed on the following (though it is also immediate), but on the call, as Mark gives us an insight into how Jesus felt about the urgency of His message.  We read that “immediately, He called them.”

Moving along, we find that “they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching” (1:21).  Jesus wastes no time.  He taught “as One Who had authority” (1:22b), which we would expect, considering the nature of His message, which was the Gospel of the kingdom of God, presumably with Himself as its King.  With that authority on display, “immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit” (1:23a).  As we can see, the powers of darkness understood the urgency as well.  As Lord, Jesus rebukes this unclean spirit, and “at once,” which is kind of like “immediately” (euthus) “His fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee” (1:28). 

In the twenty-ninth verse of the first chapter, we read “And immediately He left the synagogue” (1:29a).  We are told that Simon Peter’s mother-in-law was sick.  What happens?  “Immediately they told Him about her” (1:30b).  As we go forward, we find a leper coming to Jesus, kneeling before Him and begging to cleansed.  Jesus touches the leper, “and immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean” (1:42).  After his healing, Jesus “sent him away at once” (1:43b).  Eleven times in the first chapter of this fast-moving Gospel of Mark alone, we find him using the word “euthus.”  If we take the Gospel stories as a guide to our own kingdom activity, this fact should gain our attention.   

Table Of The Justified (part 6 of 6)

Importantly, we and the body of believers in Rome are reminded of the purpose of the words of the fourteenth chapter, and of much of the letter itself, by the words of the fifth verse of chapter fifteen: “Now may the God of endurance and comfort give you unity with one another in accordance with Christ Jesus” (15:5).  Unity, especially at the table of fellowship, was to be a hallmark of the church of Christ that lived out the kingdom of God as exampled by the life and ministry of Jesus.  Why was unity, across both the social spectrum and the long-term ethnic (Jew & Gentile) divide so crucial, “so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:6).  Obviously, this “voice” was both verbal and non-verbal; and the unity that was productive of this voice would run back to its basis, which was the belief in Jesus and the Gospel of the kingdom that provided justification for all. 

Is there really a place here to consider justification, with its production of a kingdom of Jesus believing Jew and Gentile children of Abraham?  From the beginning of chapter fourteen, we can look at the meal table through the lens of Jewish and Gentile sensibilities, and Paul is sure to bring this back squarely into focus when he instructs this body of Jesus believers to “Receive one another, then, just as Christ also received you, to God’s glory” (15:7).  This “receiving” probably carries with it an element of election, and is directed to both Jew and Gentile, who stand in equality before God, doing so on the basis of their belief in Jesus and their unswerving loyalty to Him. 

However, one might be tempted to ask if the Jew/Gentile issue is really here in sight.  The answer would come back that it most assuredly is, as Paul unleashes a veritable flood of Scripture, reminding us that the all-inclusive kingdom of God and the Scriptural narrative of His reconciling interaction with the world is always top of mind for him, and writing “For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of God’s truth to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and thus the Gentiles glorify God for His mercy.  As it is written, ‘Because of this I will confess you among the Gentiles, and I will sing praises to Your name.’  And again it says: ‘Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people.’  And again, ‘Praise the Lord all your Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise Him.’  And again Isaiah says, ‘The root of Jesse will come, and the one who rises to rule over the Gentiles, in Him will the Gentiles hope.’” (15:8-12) 

As we are well aware, this rule over the Gentiles is not a domineering rule, but is something more along the lines of a surprise, as the Gentile nations are compassionately encompassed within God’s merciful rule, just as God did with Abraham.  Thus, the Gentiles, rather than being subsumed under the previously elected covenant people, with Israel exalted over the nations, praise God that they, through the instrument of the Messiah Jesus, have been made to stand alongside Israel, justified as full and equal participants in the kingdom of God.  Quite rightly then, Paul closes out this section of the letter, encouraging his hearers with “Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you believe in Him, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (15:13).  As always, belief is in the foreground.  By that belief, Gentiles are able to join in the hope of Israel, which is the hope of resurrection and new creation, doing so via the power of the Holy Spirit that has been poured out on all (5:5). 

Kingdom Of Peace (part 3 of 3)

Based on the scope of his analysis of what has been and is being wrought in and for the world through God’s faithful action, which will continue to be made manifest by His covenant people, we can surmise that the “grace in which we stand” is a way that Paul uses to refer to covenant standing.  This could be taken to refer to the gracious extension of the covenant to those previously excluded, which would fit nicely with what appears to be Paul’s identification of himself with Gentiles, but it can also just as easily be applicable to members of Israel, who are to be cognizant of the fact that, beginning with Abraham, they were also specially chosen by God through no effort or causation of their own (with this made explicit based on the words of God delivered to Israel through Moses).   

Regardless of applicability, the recognition of God’s grace rightly leads one to “rejoice in the hope of God’s glory” (5:2b).  This rejoicing in hope points us forward to the hope that is so profoundly expressed in the eighth chapter of Romans (which will fall outside of the scope of this study), while mention of God’s glory should call to mind the words of the third chapter and Paul’s insistence that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23).  We cannot overlook the importance of the “all” there, along with the continued use of “all,” as the statement is provided its context by the context of Gentile justification (gaining of covenant standing) through belief in Jesus. 

Jesus, having revealed the glory of God by being the first to rightly bear the divine image, not only reminds us of where and how we fall short of living up to what was intended by God for humanity, He also points the way and displays the means by which we too can be truly human and so reflect the glory of God into the world.  At the same time, as Paul draws conclusions from which he can build as he moves on to the next period of thoughtful reflection, these words from the beginning of chapter five draw on the fourth chapter, as Paul continues to root his talk of righteousness, peace, faith, and grace in Abrahamic sensibilities. 

It is Abraham’s loyalty to God that serves as the model, along with that of Jesus (which first mimics that of Abraham) of the believer’s loyalty to God, which we are able to demonstrate through loyalty to the words and ways of Jesus, as He has taken up His throne of all power and all authority.  More specific to Abraham and the fourth chapter, talk of “hope” and “God’s glory” remind us that Abraham believed with hope, against hope (4:18).  Can we not say that belief in a crucified and resurrected Lord, through which one enters into covenant with God, is also a hopeful belief against hope?  Abraham’s hope concerning the promise that had been spoken to him, which runs parallel with our belief in the Resurrection and the hope of resurrection in the same manner as that which was experienced by Jesus, redounds to God’s glory, just as was the case for Abraham, who “did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God” (4:20). 

While we can certainly imagine Abraham glorifying God, we can just as easily make the case that it was Abraham’s lack of wavering, continuing in belief, that gave glory to God.  Regardless of what he saw, regardless of his age, regardless of his wife’s age, and regardless of all those things that could militate against his trusting in the promises of God concerning descendants, Abraham believed.  How can we make this application in the here and now?  As we believe in the Resurrection, so believing in Jesus (standing in covenant with God in the process and so standing in the line of descendants of Abraham and being positioned to share in the blessings promised to him), we believe that He was the first of those to be raised from the dead.  We believe that this portends another Resurrection. 

Regardless of that which we see around us, as evil seems to make its way in the world without fetters or restraints (though this is patently false), we believe that the kingdom of God has come, that Jesus is ruling, and that we participate in that kingdom, in its peace, and in its life.  We stand by faith and “rejoice in the hope of God’s glory,” trusting that, working through His loyal servants, He is bringing and going to bring His kingdom to full consummation and restore His creation as was promised and for which was hoped and expected by the prophets of old (with Jesus and the earliest believers operating with the same hope), such that “we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope” (5:3-4).  By this, we are allowed to imitate our Lord, so learning how to represent Him in the world.         

Kingdom Of Peace (part 2 of 3)

By a variety of means, Caesar extended his power and his version of peace.  All good and well, one might think, but one might also question the need to generate thoughts along such lines as we read through Romans.  Addressing that, one has to come to terms with the fact that not only does the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) have a spiritual component, as a declaration that heaven and earth has overlapped in Jesus (heaven come to earth), but it has a substantial political component as well.  “Peace” was a charged and controversial term.  Assuredly, the means of achieving peace were as debated in Paul’s day as it is in ours. 

“Gospel” itself is a term associated with the Caesar and his rule.  Calling Jesus “Lord” is a subversive activity, as it usurps the power of the Caesar, who was looked upon as Lord and Savior.  “Christ” is not a neutral term either.  It is not merely a religious or spiritual term.  When somebody says that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, they are making claims in relation to the kingdom of God that Jesus announced had come to earth and of their loyalty to that kingdom and kingdom program above loyalty to any other person or nation.  Whether they know it or not, or realize it or not, calling Jesus Savior does not have to do with going to heaven upon death.  Laying claim to salvation is about God becoming King on earth, as in heaven. 

As we know, “Christ” is the Greek translation of “Messiah,” and the Jewish Messiah was well-understood to be the King of Israel.  As the Messiah was also understood to be the physical manifestation of the Creator God of Israel, the Messiah was also thought to be King of the entire world.  That, of course, along with many other titles (son of god, to choose one), was a title of, and a claim made by the Caesar.  Applying these titles to Jesus, calling Him Lord and Master and Savior and King while also speaking about Him in terms of peace and salvation (that which was then said to be brought to the world by Caesar and by Rome), could not be more of a direct challenge to Caesar, to his rule, to his way of orchestrating and ruling his kingdom, to his claims about himself, to the claims made about him by others, and to the power (death) that stood behind him and any other pretender to God’s rightful place of rule of this world that was brought into existence at His word and hand. 

What has all of this talk of kingship and kingdom to do with much of Paul’s concern in Romans, which is belief and justification?  Quite simply, it is a question of loyalty.  Acknowledgment of a ruling power engenders questions about the demands being placed on those subordinate to that power.  Since being declared righteous (coming under the covenant, being justified) has to do with belief, and because belief, reaching back to Abraham and to that which is fundamental for Paul as he observes the ramifications of the Christ-event and the full sweep of the covenant people of God, has to do with the production of an unswerving loyalty to God, concerns of kingship and kingdom have everything to do with the believer’s justification.  Because the kingship of Jesus extends to each and every component of this creation, calling Jesus “Lord” (acceding to His Gospel) has inescapable consequences for how one engages in and with the world, bearing on every decision and every moment. 

Following the multivalent suggestions of verse one of the fifth chapter, in which Paul has expressed the peace with God that is established and that goes hand in hand with submission to the fact of His becoming King through Jesus (and as it stands in contra-distinction to the peace promised by Rome and its son of god), Paul writes “through whom we also have obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand” (5:2a).  “We” includes both Jews and Gentiles, and the access by faith is the means by which one enters upon the covenant (is justified, declared righteous, saved).  

Kingdom Of Peace (part 1 of 3)

Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. – Romans 5:1  (NET)

Though this is an obvious understatement, Paul has said much.  Having done so, he begins to reach some immediate conclusions and logical deductions that are forced by the things that he has presented in what must be understood to be the building argument of the first four chapters of the letter to the church at Rome.  Those deductions begin with “Therefore.”  He writes “Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:1).  Having been brought into the covenant people (declared righteous) through the instrumentality of faith (belief in God and its concurrent unswerving loyalty to the claims made by that God, per the example of Abraham), a state of peace between humanity and God is engendered.  This peace is attached to the Lord, who is Jesus, who is the Christ (the Anointed One/Messiah/King). 

“Peace” operates on a number of levels.  One of those levels will be overtly addressed by Paul in relatively short order.  A second level of the operation of “peace,” which is more subtle and subversive, is surely also implied, and we can see through it the juxtaposition and choice of particular words used at this particular place in the letter.  What’s subtle and subversive in the use of peace?  Doesn’t everybody desire peace?  Answering that question and addressing that issue requires us to ask another question and to see where that might lead us. 

About what might a citizen of Rome think when they hear the word “peace”?  It would be much more than an inward state of bliss or mellow contentment, or a cessation of against-ness, or of a lack of spiritual conflict.  The fact that Paul will go on to describe peace with God, the need for peace with God, and the way that such peace is generated, might inform us that these particular dimensions of peace (with which Paul deals in verses six through eleven of this chapter) would not necessarily spring to mind when Paul speaks of peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

It may very well be the case that Paul expects his Roman audience, as they are fully ensconced within the city of Rome and therefore live at the seat of Roman imperial ideology and its associated imperial theology and attendant propaganda, to think of the “pax Romana,” or “Roman peace” when he writes to them concerning peace.  This was an exalted ideal for Rome, as they imagined themselves to be the bringers of peace and justice to the world, with this having begun under the revered and exalted Emperor Caesar Augustus.  This peace, of course, was brought about primarily through military conquest.  Following military conquest when Rome deemed it necessary (some would simply acquiesce to the power of Rome without raising arms against them), the Roman peace would be secured by the ongoing threat of the exercise of military power. 

Together with that, any thoughts of rebellion were quelled and quenched by the reminder of Rome’s power of life over death, with this best (and most horribly) embodied by the Roman cross, as it was the means of execution reserved for recalcitrant slaves and rebels against Rome.  Crucifixion was employed to send a political message.  Even the crucifixion of a recalcitrant slave would convey Rome’s political might, as it reminded those that would witness the event, because of its also being used as a means of execution for those that challenged the power of Caesar, that all were slaves of Rome. 

Covenant Of Belief (part 2 of 3)

So when Paul reminds his hearers, who are familiar with the story of Abraham, that the promise did not come to Abraham because of his adherence to the covenant marker that would eventually be designated under the heading “works of the law” (which came later), and that Abraham received his righteousness (standing inside the covenant, justification, salvation, right standing with God---all of which comes with responsibilities for this life and in this world, having little if nothing to do with the destination of one’s eternal soul and whether or not one ends up in heaven or hell) through faith, he is not juxtaposing works and faith in relation to justification.  Rather, his focus remains on covenant markers and legitimating Gentile inclusion, with the latter being an obvious part of God’s plan from the very beginning. 

It seems clear that Paul recognizes, in Jesus, at least a partial (if not complete) fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham, so the spreading of the Gospel message (Jesus is Lord) to the Gentile world, with the subsequent submission to that message and to the Lord of the message, is a very natural progression.  Accordingly, this fits very well with, and makes much sense of the words of the prophets of old that are very obviously world-encompassing.    

With verse fourteen, Paul points up the inherent conflict involved in ascribing justifying activity to adherence to covenant markers (thus contributing to the possibility of a mental blurring of lines that we mentioned before), when he writes “For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified” (4:14).  Again, covenant membership (justification, salvation) does not and cannot come from the covenant markers.  The markers are reminders of belief.  Importantly, God has not changed His mind (we can relieve Him of the charge of schizophrenia when it comes to His plans for His world and His people).  The example of Abraham proves this.  He was in covenant because of belief.  If this is not so, and if he was not actually in covenant until the event of his circumcision, then belief is indeed empty, for it produced nothing.  The promises made to him then, all of which came before his circumcision and from the very beginning point to the global people of God that become His people through the same means employed by Abraham (faith), are null and void. 

Though Abraham obviously is not in a position to confess Jesus as Lord, we see the story of his life as his confession, reflecting His unswerving loyalty to the God of the promise.  Those of us now in the position to confess Jesus as Lord should similarly seek that the story of our lives be the silent confession of the same unswerving loyalty, generating the opportunity to offer verbal, public declaration. 

Belief is transcendent.  It transcends the works of the law.  It does not stand over and against the works of the law that were but reminders of a previous covenant shaped by previous faithfulness and a faithful response, but rather serves as the foundation.  To make this point, Paul adds that “it is by faith so that it may be by grace” (4:16a).  Grace, of course, was present in God’s dealings with Abraham, and did not receive its advent with that of Jesus.  Thus it has “the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants---not only to those who are under the law” (4:16b), the Jews, “but also to those who have the faith of Abraham” (4:16c), who are all those that enter into covenant (including those who have the law) by means of their belief in the God of the covenant. 

In conjunction with these moves, Paul makes a point to here reiterate that Abraham, “is the father of us all” (4:16d).  In a culture that places a heavy emphasis on the father as the head of a household and the honor of that position, whether that culture be Jew or Gentile, with much additional honor (for the Jew) attached to being a member of Abraham’s household, this is not an insignificant statement.  The household could extend beyond blood relations, which we see in the story of Abraham, as he is willing to look to a servant in his house as a completely legitimate heir to the covenantal promise, and would have considered God’s carrying on and carrying out of His promise through that servant as a demonstration of His covenantal faithfulness.  This would not necessarily be an unusual position for Abraham to take, as it was a common and accepted practice for a favored servant to enjoy benefits in line with being a biological or adopted son.  Therefore, this particular use of the Abraham example is doubly emphatic when applied to the status of Gentiles in relation to the covenant (not to mention the whole of the believing community), in that there is an egalitarianism insistence, in that all that come to belief in Jesus are of the same family and bear the same status, while it also joins Jew and Gentile together in a mythic physical descent, as Paul adds “(as it is written, ‘I have made you the father of many nations’)” (4:17a). 

Mark Of Righteousness (part 3 of 3)

Having sufficiently (hopefully) immersed ourselves in the story of Abraham, such that we have now heard and comprehended the crucial components of that story of covenant within its proper order, we can use that for purposes of an interaction with the fourth chapter of Romans.  We can begin that interaction with the ninth verse, in possession of perhaps a new potential for enlightenment, now hearing this portion of Paul’s argument for Gentile justification (covenant standing) as the adjunct to all that has preceded it and as a preface to that which is the weighty subject matter of chapters nine through eleven.  Reading then, we hear Paul asking his mixed congregation of hearers “Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision?” (4:9a).  This “blessedness” is of a piece with the Abrahamic covenant (begun in chapter twelve of Genesis, with annexations over time and the course of the text).  We do ourselves a tremendous disservice if we do not maintain our cognizance of this fact, along with the Abraham story, as we hear the answer to Paul’s rhetorical question, which is “For we say, ‘faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.’” (4:9b)  Yes, ‘twas Abraham’s faith---his belief that engendered an unswerving loyalty to the covenant-making-and-keeping Creator God---that brought him into right standing (covenant) with God. 

Keying in on the order of events, as Paul elevates the covenant marker of belief in Jesus over and against the Jewish covenant markers of the day, Paul, as if poking and prodding at his listeners for an answer that should be all too obvious to them, while also conveying just a little bit of shame on those that have insisted on the necessity of circumcision to be identified as a covenant person and so enjoy its benefits, asks “How then was it credited to him?  Was he circumcised at the time, or not?” (4:10a)  Forcing his point, the answer comes forth as “No, he was not circumcised but uncircumcised!” (4:10b)  This, when read to the congregation by a tradent, would undoubtedly be read in such a way as to convey the singular importance of this point when it comes to dealing with this quite pressing and, for Paul, possibly church-and-kingdom-of-God limiting issue. 

The next verse points up what Paul sees as something that presents an insurmountable contradiction for those that insist on circumcision (along with Sabbath-keeping and food laws, neither of which are anywhere near the Abraham story) as the means of entrance upon the covenant.  He writes “And he received the sign of circumcision,” which we remember was to serve as a “reminder” of the fact of his right standing with God and the promises that had been made to him, “as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (4:11a).  Now, even the most ardent defender of circumcision as a covenant marker would not be willing to insist that Abraham was not in covenant with God before being circumcised.  Circumcision, Paul reiterates, was the sign of what God had already determined in regards to Abraham because of his belief.  Thus, confirming his position in regards to Gentiles and what is required of them to become covenant people (to be justified), this order of events was neatly orchestrated by God “so that he would become the father of all those who believe but have never been circumcised” (4:11b).  Why?  “That they too could have righteousness credited to them” (4:11c).  That is, that they too could, because of their faith, showing itself forth as an unswerving loyalty to the covenant and Creator God of Israel as manifested in Jesus the Messiah, attain the justification that was attained by Abraham, in advance and independent of circumcision.  Belief was and is the key, and the prophetic insistence on God’s performance of a circumcision of the heart rings in our increasingly alert and sensitive ears. 

While proposing all of these things, Paul is still sensitive to the position of those that are the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac, who have lived as the covenant people according to the dictates of the covenant as governed by the Mosaic law (and morphed over time into the shape that had been taken in the days of Jesus), Paul, and the early church, and who bear this particular covenant marker because of the ongoing faith of a covenant people.  This sensitivity is well demonstrated in chapter nine, the precursor of which is to be partially found in this statement: “And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised” (4:12).  There are no second-class citizens.  Bearing the mark of circumcision does not mean that one does not walk the path of faith.  Paul does not allow his hearers to lose sight of that fact that Abraham was faithful both before and after circumcision.  Circumcision did not diminish faith.  In fact, as we can see in the Abraham story, it was the faith by which Abraham was justified that eventually led to him being gifted with a reminder of that covenant---a unique, identifying mark.      

Abraham's Family (part 3 of 3)

The sovereign God continues speaking, saying “As for Me, this is My covenant with you” (17:4a).  He does not follow this with “you will be circumcised, observe Sabbaths, and maintain these dietary restrictions.”  Rather, He says “You will be the father of a multitude of nations” (17:4b).  This covenant into which one enters, and therefore enters into a covenantal relationship with the Creator God, and does so in the manner of Abraham (belief), involves a “multitude of nations.”  This is God’s intention from the outset.  God speaks about a multitude of nations, then says words that should be taken to make reference to a multitude of nations rather than a single nation.  Of course, if we are paying close attention to the telling of this story, and if the story is being told as it is supposed to be told (in a single setting, spoken aloud to a group of people that form an oral/aural community), then it has not been too long since the telling of the scattering of the peoples across the face of the entire earth (11:9), which is what, if we remove the genealogy of Shem and the record of Terah, is what immediately precedes the call of Abraham.  One could reach the conclusion that the call of Abraham partially occurs so as to remedy the scattering of peoples across the face of the earth, and that this provides greater import to talk of the blessings and promises made to Abraham reaching a “multitude of nations.”

Because of what we are attempting to observe with Paul in Romans, specifically in chapter four, which demands a thorough working knowledge of the Abraham story, we must notice the progression of the promise.  It begins with Abraham being made into a great nation (12:2), and this includes the promise that “all of the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:3b).  Though this clearly, at the outset, removes the promise from any type of isolation to Abraham alone, it can also be easily construed as a promise in which the families of the earth become subservient to Abraham. 

In the fifteenth chapter, there is talk of Abraham’s descendants as a specific group of people that will be oppressed and enslaved by a specific nation that will receive specific judgment, with this specific group of formerly oppressed and enslaved descendants coming out from that situation and receiving a specific piece of land as proof of God’s faithfulness to His covenant with Abraham. 

On to chapter seventeen, the re-confirmation of the covenant and its recurring talk of multitudinous descendants now includes talk of a “multitude of nations.”  With this talk of Abraham now being the father of a multitude of nations, any notion that the blessings to be experienced by the families of the earth will stem from their subservience to Abraham’s descendants, who may be looked upon as a family separated from and set against other groups of people, falls away.  Not only will Abraham be made into a great nation, but he will be a father of nations, which means that, as the head of the household of nations, all nations will share equally in the blessings.  All nations will participate equally in the covenant and its promises.  At this point, all of this is still predicated on Abraham’s belief, his response of faith, and the genuine loyalty entailed thereby. 

Just in case the reader or the listener missed it the first time that talk of nations is directed to Abraham, to the words of verse four is added “No longer will your name be Abram.  Instead, your name will be Abraham because I will make you the father of a multitude of nations” (17:5).  Also, just in case one is tempted to think that “multitude of nations” includes only a portion of the nations of the world rather than implying that God intends to extend His covenant to all the nations and peoples of the world via the descendant(s) of Abraham, the sixth verse disabuses us of any such notion, as we read “I will make you extremely fruitful” (17:6a).  This is an unmistakable reference to God’s words to the first of humankind, which were “Be fruitful and multiply” (1:28b).  Of course, these words are also spoken to Noah in the ninth chapter, following the flood, where we hear “Be fruitful and multiply” (9:1b).  This directive is attended by “fill the earth,” which could certainly be appended to the words spoken to Abraham, with the nations now standing in for the filling of the earth. 

God speaks to the first family (Adam and Eve, though it is not explicit in the text) following the creation and says “Be fruitful and multiply.”  God speaks to the second family (Noah and his sons) following what could be termed the second creation and says “Be fruitful and multiply.”  God speaks to the third family (Abraham and his descendants) at something like a third creation and says, essentially, “Be fruitful and multiply.”  This, of course, is basically what Jesus says to His disciples following His Resurrection that marked the renewal of creation and the beginning of the new creation (at the time of the letter to the Romans there would be no Gospel of Matthew and no written version of “the great commission,” so this would fall under the heading, at that point, of “oral Jesus tradition”).  This is the charge that is taken up by Paul, who will incorporate talk of creation and new creation in his letters, with this understanding concerning nations and multiplication essential to his comprehension of the Gospel and its presentation in the letter to the congregation in Rome.     

Abraham's Family (part 2 of 3)

After Abraham’s response of faith, which proved his genuine loyalty, God continues to speak to Abraham, saying “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess” (15:7b).  Having responded in faith, Abraham has accepted that this can be made to happen, even if his situation and circumstances seemed to militate against the possibility; but he does ask “O Sovereign Lord, by what can I know that I am to possess it?” (15:8)  The Lord responded with directions concerning some animals, which would lead to a covenant ritual.  As it relates to what Paul is attempting to prove in Romans four, given the opportunity to here enshrine circumcision as the proof of God’s covenant promise to Abraham, the proof comes in the form of yet one more thing for which Abraham will have to trust is going to come about under the ultimate control of this sovereign God. 

Strangely, Abraham is told “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign country.  They will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.  But I will execute judgment on the nation that they will serve.  Afterward they will come out with many possessions.  But as for you, you will go to your ancestors in peace a be buried at a good old age.  In the fourth generation your descendants will return here” (15:13b-16b).  The eighteenth verse stresses what it is that God is doing, as we read “That day the Lord made a covenant with Abram: ‘To your descendants I give this land” (15:18a).  So here we have explicit language of covenant, and a specific promise related to Abraham’s descendants, with this following Abraham’s belief, which has induced the continued communication between God and Abraham, and there is still no circumcision (or any other visible or physical covenant marker besides loyalty).  Though he does not offer any outward signs, can it be doubted that Abraham is operating under the auspices of God’s covenant with him?  Of course not.

At least thirteen years later, as we press forward to chapter seventeen to hear God again speaking to Abraham, we hear Him say “I am the sovereign God.  Walk before Me and be blameless.  Then I will confirm My covenant between Me and you, and I will give you a multitude of descendants” (17:1b-2).  We bear usefully in mind that it has been quite some time since Abraham has heard “a son who comes from your own body will be your heir” (15:4b).  In the meantime, and according to his belief in God and his response of faith, Abraham has produced an heir, from his own body, with that heir being his son, Ishmael.  In fact, those hearing the story would also have heard God speaking to Ishmael’s mother and saying to her (using language that is heavy with Abrahamic covenant implications ) “I will greatly multiply your descendants… so that they will be too numerous to count” (16:10). 

This sounds quite similar to the words that have been spoken to Abraham in regards to his descendants.  Assuredly, these words of promise, though offered to Hagar, would not go unheard by Abraham, and would be evidence, to him, of the faithfulness of his God.  We simply cannot imagine Hagar keeping this experience from him.  As one of Abraham’s wives, and as one who, as a servant in his household prior to gaining status as a wife, would have learned about the God that is said to have revealed Himself to Abraham, we can only imagine her excitedly sharing the good news with her husband, as it would have been received as yet another confirmation of the words of promise that had been previously directed only to Abraham himself.  Hagar would not have heard them as an independent promise to her.  She would have heard them in the context of the promise to Abraham, especially since she had been taken as his wife specifically in relation to Abraham’s belief in God that he would have countless descendants.  For Abraham, Hagar and the son to be born through Hagar were integral components of the fulfillment of promise.    

When Abraham hears God speaking again in the words that open the seventeenth chapter, and when those that hear the story of Abraham again here the voice of God, what is heard is renewed talk of a multitude of descendants that follows hard upon nearly identical words spoken to Hagar.  Surely this of interest to someone like Paul, who has as his mission to throw wide the gate of entry into the fold of the covenant people of God, firmly believing that, in Christ, this covenant encompasses all peoples (and hence all creation as the land of promise), not being limited to the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac or to those that take up covenant markers that the Abraham story clearly reveals to be of a secondary concern.  To this point in the Abraham story, it has been well demonstrated that belief in God is the primary concern and the basis for a covenantal relationship.